Outcomes differ between subgroups of patients with low back and leg pain following neural manual therapy: a prospective cohort study

Effectiveness of neural mobilisation for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain: a systematic review with subgroup meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Neural mobilisations (NM) have been advocated for the treatment of nerve-related cervicobrachial pain; however, it is unclear what types of patients with nerve-related cervicobrachial pain (if any) may benefit. Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, PeDro, Cinahl, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they assessed the effectiveness of NM in nerve-related cervicobrachial pain, and outcome measures were pain intensity and/or disability. Studies were classified according to their inclusion/exclusion criteria as radiculopathy , Wainner cluster , Hall , and Elvey cluster or other . Meta-analyses with subgroup analyses were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Rob2 tool. Twenty-seven studies were included. For pain and disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than no treatment (pooled pain mean difference [MD] = -2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.81 to -1.81; pooled disability standardized mean difference = -1.55, 95% CI = -2.72 to -0.37), increased the effectiveness of standard physiotherapy as an adjuvant when compared with standard physiotherapy alone (pooled pain MD = -1.44, 95% CI = -1.98 to -0.89; pooled disability MD = -11.07, 95% CI = -16.38 to -5.75) but was no more effective than cervical traction (pooled pain MD = -0.33, 95% CI = -1.35 to 0.68; pooled disability MD = -10.09, 95% CI = -21.89 to 1.81). For disability reduction, NM was found to be more effective than exercise (pooled MD = -18.27, 95% CI = -20.29 to -17.44). In most comparisons, there were significant differences in the effectiveness of NM between the subgroups. Neural mobilisations was consistently more effective than all alternative interventions (no treatment, traction, exercise, and standard physiotherapy alone) in 13 studies classified as Wainner cluster . PROSPERO registration: CRD42022376087.

Inter- and intra-rater-reliability of a clinical framework for spine-related neck-arm pain

OBJECTIVE

A mechanism-based clinical framework for spine-related pain differentiates (i) somatic referred pain, ii) heightened nerve mechanosensitivity, iii) radicular pain, iv) radiculopathy and mixed-pain. This study aimed to determine the reliability of proposed framework.

METHOD

Fifty-one people with unilateral spine-related neck-arm pain were assessed and categorized by examiner-1. The classifications were compared to those made by two other examiners, based on written documentation of examiner-1. Cohens kappa was calculated between examiner-pairs; Fleiss Kappa among all examiners to assess agreement in classifying subgroups and entire framework.

RESULT

Inter-rater-reliability showed moderate to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI 0.87-1.0) to 1.0 (95% CI: 1.0-1.0), radicular pain: 0.46 (95% CI: 0.19-0.69) to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.42-0.81), radiculopathy: 0.65 (95% CI: 0.43-0.84) to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.63-0.96) mixed-pain: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.21-0.81) to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.48-0.94). There was almost perfect to moderate reliability among all examiners (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82-1.0), radicular pain: 0.56 (95% CI: 0.40-0.71), radiculopathy: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.58-0.90), mixed-pain: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.47-0.79), entire framework: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.57-0.71)). Intra-rater-reliability showed substantial to almost perfect reliability (somatic: no variation, mechanosensitivity: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.87-1.0), radicular pain: 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57-0.92), radiculopathy: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-0.96), mixed-pain: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.60-1.0), entire framework: 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Moderate to almost perfect reliability in subgrouping people with spine-related neck-arm pain and substantial reliability for entire framework support this classification's reliability.

Low-back related leg pain: is the nerve guilty? How to differentiate the underlying pain mechanism

Low back pain (LBP) that radiates to the leg is not always related to a lesion or a disease of the nervous system (neuropathic pain): it might be nociceptive (referred) pain. Unfortunately, patients with low-back related leg pain are often given a variety of diagnoses (e.g. 'sciatica'; 'radicular pain'; pseudoradicular pain"). This terminology causes confusion and challenges clinical reasoning. It is essential for clinicians to understand and recognize predominant pain mechanisms. This paper describes pain mechanisms related to low back-related leg pain and helps differentiate these mechanisms in practice using clinical based scenarios. We illustrate this by using two clinical scenarios including patients with the same symptoms in terms of pain localization (i.e. low-back related leg pain) but with different underlying pain mechanisms (i.e. nociceptive versus neuropathic pain).

Cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Persian version of the lumbar spine instability questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Lumbar Spine Instability Questionnaire (LSIQ) is a self-reported measure of clinical instability of the lumbar spine. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the LSIQ into Persian language (LSIQ-P) and to evaluate its reliability and validity in a sample of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, the LSIQ was translated using guidelines. Participants with chronic non-specific LBP, aged ≥ 18 years old, answered an online survey consisting of LSIQ-P, the Persian Functional Rating Index (FRI), and the pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Construct validity, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC), discriminant validity, and factor analysis were evaluated.

RESULTS

The LSIQ was successfully adapted into Persian. A sample of 100 participants with LBP and 100 healthy subjects completed the survey. Floor and ceiling effects were not observed. Cronbach's alpha = 0.767 and ICC_agreement = 0.78 indicated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The SEM and SDC were 1.53 and 4.24, respectively. Construct validity of LSIQ-P was confirmed with significant correlation with Persian FRI (r = 0.44, p < 0.001) and pain NRS (r = 0.30, p = 0.003). An evidence of discriminant validity was demonstrated by significant difference in LSIQ-P total scores between the patients with LBP and healthy subjects, and between the patients with high total score ≥ 9 and those with low total score < 9 on the LSIQ-P. The LSIQ-P was found a multidimensional instrument with eight items appeared being redundant.

CONCLUSIONS

The Persian LSIQ showed satisfactory metric characteristics of reliability and validity. Further studies are required to elucidate the internal structure of the LSIQ-P.

Disentangling 'sciatica' to understand and characterise somatosensory profiles and potential pain mechanisms

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate if patients with lumbar radicular pain only and those with combined lumbar radicular pain + radiculopathy differ in their somatosensory profiles and pain experiences.

METHODS

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) was performed in 26 patients (mean age 47 ± 10 years, 10 females) with unilateral leg pain in the L5 or S1 distribution in their main pain area (MPA) and contralateral mirror side, in the relevant foot dermatome on the symptomatic side and in the hand dorsum. Pain experience was captured on the painDETECT.

RESULTS

Eight patients presented with lumbar radicular pain only and 18 patients with combined radicular pain + radiculopathy. Patients with radicular pain only demonstrated widespread loss of function (mechanical detection) bilaterally in the MPA (p<0.003) and hand (p=0.002), increased heat sensitivity in both legs (p<0.019) and cold/heat sensitivity in the hand (p<0.024). QST measurements in the dermatome did not differ compared to HCs and patients with radiculopathy. Patients with lumbar radiculopathy were characterised by a localised loss of function in the symptomatic leg in the MPA (warm, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p<0.031) and dermatome (mechanical, vibration detection p<0.001), consistent with a nerve root lesion. Pain descriptors did not differ between the two groups with the exception of numbness (p<0.001). Patients with radicular pain did not report symptoms of numbness, while 78% of patients with radiculopathy did.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinct differences in somatosensory profiles and pain experiences were demonstrated for each patient group, suggesting differing underlying pain mechanisms.

[Entrapment neuropathies: a contemporary approach to pathophysiology, clinical assessment, and management : German version]

Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome, radiculopathies, or radicular pain are the most common peripheral neuropathies and also the most common cause for neuropathic pain. Despite their high prevalence, they often remain challenging to diagnose and manage in a clinical setting. Summarising the evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies, this review provides an update on the aetiology and pathophysiology of entrapment neuropathies. Potenzial mechanisms are put in perspective with clinical findings. The contemporary assessment is discussed and diagnostic pitfalls highlighted. The evidence for the noninvasive and surgical management of common entrapment neuropathies is summarised and future areas of research are identified.

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Clinical Course of Neuropathic Pain in Primary Care Patients Consulting With Low Back-related Leg Pain

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the epidemiology of neuropathic pain in primary care patients consulting with low back-related leg pain. We aimed to describe prevalence, characteristics, and clinical course of low back-related leg pain patients with and without neuropathic pain, consulting with their family doctor in the United Kingdom.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. Data were collected using a standardized baseline clinical examination and self-report questionnaires at baseline, 4, 12, and 36 months. We identified cases of neuropathic pain using 3 definitions: 2 based on clinical diagnosis (sciatica, with and without evidence of nerve root compression on magnetic resonance imaging), one on the self-report version of Leeds Assessment for Neurological Symptoms and Signs. Differences between patients with and without neuropathic pain were analyzed comparing each definition. Clinical course (mean pain intensity measured as the highest of leg or back pain intensity: mean of 3 Numerical Rating Scales, each 0 to 10) was investigated using linear mixed models over 36 months.

RESULTS

Prevalence of neuropathic pain varied from 48% to 74% according to definition used. At baseline, patients with neuropathic pain had more severe leg pain intensity, lower pain self-efficacy, more patients had sensory loss than those without. Distinct profiles were apparent depending on neuropathic pain definition. Mean pain intensity reduced after 4 months (6.1 to 3.9 [sciatica]), most rapidly in cases defined by clinical diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

This research provides new information on the clinical course of neuropathic pain and a better understanding of neuropathic pain in low back-related leg pain patients consulting in primary care.

Comparison of conservative treatment with and without neural mobilization for patients with low back pain: A prospective, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is a common problem that causes pain, disability, and gait and balance problems. Neurodynamic techniques are used in the treatment of LBP.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of electrotherapy and neural mobilization on pain, functionality, gait, and balance in patients with LBP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 41 patients were randomly assigned to either the neural mobilization group (NMG, n= 20) or electrotherapy group (ETG, n= 21). Assessment tools used were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functionality, straight leg raise test (SLRT) for neural involvement, and baropedographic platform (Zebris FDM-2TM) for gait and static balance measurements.

RESULTS

Both groups showed a significant decrease in pain and functional disability, while only the NMG group showed a significant increase in SLRT scores (p< 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant pre- to post-treatment changes in gait or static balance parameters in either group (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Neural mobilization was effective in reducing pain and improving functionality and SLRT performance in patients with LBP, but induced no change in gait and static balance parameters. Neural mobilization may be used as self-practice to supplement standard treatment programs.

Methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

Mechanism-based classification of pain has been advocated widely to aid tailoring of interventions for individuals experiencing persistent musculoskeletal pain. Three pain mechanism categories (PMCs) are defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain. Discrimination between them remains challenging. This study aimed to build on a framework developed to converge the diverse literature of PMCs to systematically review methods purported to discriminate between them; synthesise and thematically analyse these methods to identify the convergence and divergence of opinion; and report validation, psychometric properties, and strengths/weaknesses of these methods. The search strategy identified articles discussing methods to discriminate between mechanism-based categories of pain experienced in the musculoskeletal system. Studies that assessed the validity of methods to discriminate between categories were assessed for quality. Extraction and thematic analysis were undertaken on 184 articles. Data synthesis identified 200 methods in 5 themes: clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing, imaging, diagnostic and laboratory testing, and pain-type questionnaires. Few methods have been validated for discrimination between PMCs. There was general convergence but some disagreement regarding findings that discriminate between PMCs. A combination of features and methods, rather than a single method, was generally recommended to discriminate between PMCs. Two major limitations were identified: an overlap of findings of methods between categories due to mixed presentations and many methods considered discrimination between 2 PMCs but not others. The results of this review provide a foundation to refine methods to differentiate mechanisms for musculoskeletal pain.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of physiotherapy intervention in management of lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to analyze the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions in management of lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc (PIVD).

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed and Cochrane Library using related keywords and advanced option, from commencement to January 2019. Quality of researches was assessed by PEDro scoring. Risk of bias and homogeneity were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool and I²value, respectively. Meta-analysis of included study was done using "Review manager (Software, version 5.3)."

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included in this systematic review. Six RCTs were excluded from meta-analysis due to insufficient data availability. Meta-analysis reveals significant decrease in pain (P = 0.001, mean difference (MD) -0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -1.48) and disability (P < 0.0001; MD -5.76; 95%CI; -3.18 to -8.34) with moderate heterogeneity (I2=40%; P = 0.17, I2=54%; P = 0.09, respectively). There was non-significant improvement in straight leg raise (SLR), P = 0.07; MD 7.96; 95%CI; -0.59-16.51 with moderate heterogeneity (I2=56%; P = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Physiotherapy interventions are effective in management of lumbar PIVD. Physiological and biomechanical factors such as correction of the displaced disc, opening of the foramina, increase in intervertebral space, and reduction in herniation size with negative intradiscal pressure may be possible mechanisms.

Application and utility of a clinical framework for spinally referred neck-arm pain: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study protocol

BACKGROUND

The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time.

METHOD

We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course.

CONCLUSION

The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.

The immediate effect of neurodynamic techniques on jumping performance: A randomised double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Neurodynamic techniques are used to restore neural functions. However, there are few studies about the effects on performance. The aim of this study was to investigate the immediate effects on vertical jumping (VJ) and horizontal jumping (HJ) of 2 different tension loading techniques applied to young adults.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In this randomised double-blind study, a total of 68 participants with a mean age of 21.31 ± 1.21 years were separated into 2 groups using the closed envelope system: the femoral nerve mobilization (FNM) group and the sciatic nerve mobilization (SNM) group. The FNM and SNM techniques were applied as 2 seconds stretching with 2 seconds resting for 10 repetitions. The VJ and HJ performance of the participants was evaluated before and after the interventions by a researcher blinded to the groups.

RESULTS

The mean VJ performance before and after interventions was measured as 34.56 ± 7.80 cm and 35.89 ± 8.15 cm in the FNM group (p< 0.05) and 31.74 ± 8.31 cm and 32.76 ± 8.45 cm in the SNM group (p< 0.05). The effects of the techniques on HJ performance were not statistically significant (p> 0.05). There was no superiority between the techniques (p> 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The neurodynamic techniques were found to provide an immediate increase in VJ performance. Neurodynamic techniques are generally used in patient populations to improve treatment outcomes. According to these study results, neurodynamic techniques can be safely used to provide an immediate increase in performances of individuals with no lower extremity problems.

Entrapment neuropathies: a contemporary approach to pathophysiology, clinical assessment, and management

Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome, radiculopathies, or radicular pain are the most common peripheral neuropathies and also the most common cause for neuropathic pain. Despite their high prevalence, they often remain challenging to diagnose and manage in a clinical setting. Summarising the evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies, this review provides an update on the aetiology and pathophysiology of entrapment neuropathies. Potential mechanisms are put in perspective with clinical findings. The contemporary assessment is discussed and diagnostic pitfalls highlighted. The evidence for the noninvasive and surgical management of common entrapment neuropathies is summarised and future areas of research are identified.

Effect of subgroup-specific multimodal therapy on chronic spinal back pain and function-a prospective inpatient multicentre clinical trial in Germany

Treatment modalities of spinal pain patients are discussed diversely, and different multimodal therapy programs have been developed. Purpose of the present study was to evaluate therapy outcome and effectiveness of an inpatient interdisciplinary and multimodal treatment program.This prospective multicentre clinical trial has been performed with patients from orthopedic hospitals receiving a functional musculoskeletal therapy pathway. Outcome measures were pain intensity and back-specific function (Oswestry Disability Index) before (T1) and after the intervention (T2) as well as after 6 and 12 months (T3, T4). Statistical approach included parametric (t test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon-test) tests and the calculation of effect sizes. Additionally, a statistical subgroup analysis based on selected parameters (degree of pain chronicity, gender, and age) was performed using linear mixed models.In total, 249 patients (42.6% men, 57.4% women) with spinal pain were included, 133 patients were accessible for follow-up at T3 and 106 patients at T4.Average pain (AP) reduced significantly (P <.001) from T1 to T4 with an effect size of 0.99. Back-specific function also improved (P <.001) over all measuring time points (TP) (effect size: 0.63). Furthermore, the statistical subgroup analysis demonstrated the efficacy of the treatment concept within the subgroup parameters chronicity degree and age.A functional musculoskeletal therapy pathway including treatment of musculoskeletal dysfunctions appears to be beneficial in terms of treating pain and function. Pain chronicity and age seems to be factors influencing therapy outcome. Further studies are needed to examine the superiority of these inpatient programs for back pain including control groups.

The Effect of Spinal Mobilization With Leg Movement in Patients With Lumbar Radiculopathy-A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of spinal mobilization with leg movement (SMWLM) on low back and leg pain intensity, disability, pain centralization, and patient satisfaction in participants with lumbar radiculopathy.

DESIGN

A double-blind randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

General hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (N=60; mean age 44y) with subacute lumbar radiculopathy.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly allocated to receive SMWLM, exercise and electrotherapy (n=30), or exercise and electrotherapy alone (n=30). All participants received 6 sessions over 2 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were leg pain intensity and Oswestry Disability Index score. Secondary variables were low back pain intensity, global rating of change (GROC), straight leg raise (SLR), and lumbar range of motion (ROM). Variables were evaluated blind at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3 and 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Significant and clinically meaningful improvement occurred in all outcome variables. At 2 weeks the SMWLM group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in leg pain (MD 2.0; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.4-2.6) and disability (MD 3.9; 95% CI, 5.5-2.2). Similarly, at 6 months, the SMWLM group had significantly greater improvement than the control group in leg pain (MD 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9-3.2) and disability (MD 4.7; 95% CI, 6.3-3.1). The SMWLM group also reported greater improvement in the GROC and in SLR ROM.

CONCLUSION

In patients with lumbar radiculopathy, the addition of SMWLM provided significantly improved benefits in leg and back pain, disability, SLR ROM, and patient satisfaction in the short and long term.

Entrapment Neuropathies: Challenging Common Beliefs With Novel Evidence

Entrapment neuropathies are the most prevalent type of peripheral neuropathy and often a challenge to diagnose and treat. To a large extent, our current knowledge is based on empirical concepts and early (often biomechanical) studies. This Viewpoint will challenge some of the current beliefs with recent advances in both basic and clinical neurosciences. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(2):58-62. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0603.

Neuropathic Pain in Low Back-Related Leg Pain Patients: What Is the Evidence of Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prognosis in Primary Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature

This systematic review synthesizes literature describing prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) patients with neuropathic pain in primary care and/or similar settings. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and used by independent reviewers to screen citations for eligibility. The initial search yielded 24,948 citations; after screening 12 studies were included. Neuropathic pain was identified using case ascertainment tools (n = 5), clinical history with examination (n = 4), and using LBLP samples assumed neuropathic (n = 3). Neuropathic pain prevalence varied from 19% to 80%. There was consistent evidence for higher back-related disability (n = 3), poorer health-related quality of life (n = 2), and some evidence for more severe depression (n = 2), anxiety (n = 3), and pain intensity (n = 4) in patients with neuropathic pain. Results were less consistent when cases were identified through clinical history with examination than those identified using case ascertainment tools. Prognosis (n = 1) of LBLP patients with neuropathic pain was worse compared with those without, in all outcomes (leg pain intensity, leg and back-related disability, self-reported general health) except back pain intensity. No studies described prognostic factors. This systematic review highlights the evidence gap in neuropathic pain in LBLP in primary care, especially with respect to prognosis.

PERSPECTIVE

Patients with LBLP may have neuropathic pain. This systematic review emphasizes the paucity of evidence describing the characteristics and prognosis of neuropathic pain in this patient population. Future research investigating prognosis of these patients with neuropathic pain is likely to contribute to better understanding and management.

The Effectiveness of Neural Mobilization for Neuromusculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Objectives To determine the efficacy of neural mobilization (NM) for musculoskeletal conditions with a neuropathic component. Background Neural mobilization, or neurodynamics, is a movement-based intervention aimed at restoring the homeostasis in and around the nervous system. The current level of evidence for NM is largely unknown. Methods A database search for randomized trials investigating the effect of NM on neuromusculoskeletal conditions was conducted, using standard methods for article identification, selection, and quality appraisal. Where possible, studies were pooled for meta-analysis, with pain, disability, and function as the primary outcomes. Results Forty studies were included in this review, of which 17 had a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses could only be performed on self-reported outcomes. For chronic low back pain, disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire [0-50]: mean difference, -9.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.50, -4.01; P<.001) and pain (intensity [0-10]: mean difference, -1.78; 95% CI: -2.55, -1.01; P<.001) improved following NM. For chronic neck-arm pain, pain improved (intensity: mean difference, -1.89; 95% CI: -3.14, -0.64; P<.001) following NM. For most of the clinical outcomes in individuals with carpal tunnel syndrome, NM was not effective (P>.11) but showed some positive neurophysiological effects (eg, reduced intraneural edema). Due to a scarcity of studies or conflicting results, the effect of NM remains uncertain for various conditions, such as postoperative low back pain, cubital tunnel syndrome, and lateral epicondylalgia. Conclusion This review reveals benefits of NM for back and neck pain, but the effect of NM on other conditions remains unclear. Due to the limited evidence and varying methodological quality, conclusions may change over time. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1a. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2017;47(9):593-615. Epub 13 Jul 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2017.7117.

Effects of lower body quadrant neural mobilization in healthy and low back pain populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neural mobilization (NM) is widely used to assess and treat several neuromuscular disorders. However, information regarding the NM effects targeting the lower body quadrant is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of NM techniques targeting the lower body quadrant in healthy and low back pain (LBP) populations.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials were included if any form of NM was applied to the lower body quadrant. Pain, disability, and lower limb flexibility were the main outcomes. PEDro scale was used to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were selected for full-text analysis, and ten were included in the meta-analysis, involving 502 participants. Overall, studies presented fair to good quality, with a mean PEDro score of 6.3 (from 4 to 8). Five studies used healthy participants, and five targeted people with LBP. A moderate effect size (g = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.48-0.98) was determined, favoring the use of NM to increase flexibility in healthy adults. Larger effect sizes were found for the effect of NM in pain reduction (g = 0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.08) and disability improvement (g = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.14-2.03), in people with LBP.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that there are positive effects from the application of NM to the lower body quadrant. Specifically, NM shows moderate effects on flexibility in healthy participants, and large effects on pain and disability in people with LBP. Nevertheless, more studies with high methodological quality are necessary to support these conclusions.

Neurodynamic treatment did not improve pain and disability at two weeks in patients with chronic nerve-related leg pain: a randomised trial

QUESTION

In people with nerve-related leg pain, does adding neurodynamic treatment to advice to remain active improve leg pain, disability, low back pain, function, global perceived effect and location of symptoms?

DESIGN

Randomised trial with concealed allocation and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty participants with nerve-related leg pain recruited from the community.

INTERVENTIONS

The experimental group received four sessions of neurodynamic treatment. Both groups received advice to remain active.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Leg pain and low back pain (0, none, to 10, worst), Oswestry Disability Index (0, none, to 100, worst), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (0, unable to perform, to 30, able to perform), global perceived effect (-5 to 5) and location of symptoms were measured at 2 and 4 weeks after randomisation. Continuous outcomes were analysed by linear mixed models. Location of symptoms was assessed by relative risk (95% CI).

RESULTS

At 2 weeks, the experimental group did not have significantly greater improvement than the control group in leg pain (MD -1.1, 95% CI -2.3 to 0.1) or disability (MD -3.3, 95% CI -9.6 to 2.9). At 4 weeks, the experimental group experienced a significantly greater reduction in leg pain (MD -2.4, 95% CI -3.6 to -1.2) and low back pain (MD -1.5, 95% CI -2.8 to -0.2). The experimental group also improved significantly more in function at 2 weeks (MD 5.2, 95% CI 2.2 to 8.2) and 4 weeks (MD 4.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.8), as well as global perceived effect at 2 weeks (MD 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 3.5) and 4 weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.9). No significant between-group differences occurred in disability at 4 weeks and location of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Adding neurodynamic treatment to advice to remain active did not improve leg pain and disability at 2 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01954199. [Ferreira G, Stieven F, Araujo F, Wiebusch M, Rosa C, Plentz R, et al. (2016) Neurodynamic treatment did not improve pain and disability at two weeks in patients with chronic nerve-related leg pain: a randomised trial.Journal of Physiotherapy62: 197-202].

The effects of neurodynamic straight leg raise treatment duration on range of hip flexion and protective muscle activity at P1

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, single blind, same subject crossover trial.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of two neurodynamic treatment doses on range of hip flexion (ROM HF) and electromyographic (EMG) activity of semitendinosus, at first onset of pain (P1).

METHODS

A total of 26 healthy participants without low back or leg pain received each treatment in a random order with at least 48 hours between sessions. Baseline ROM HF and EMG magnitude of semitendinosus at P1 were collected. Subjects then received either 361 or 362 minutes of oscillating end of range (grade IVz) straight leg raise (SLR) neurodynamic treatment and were re-assessed for baseline measures.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in EMG magnitude (P50.190) and ROM HF (P50.739) at P1. There was also no significant difference within groups in EMG magnitude at P1 (P50.182); however, there was a significant improvement in ROM HF at P1 in both groups compared to baseline readings (P50.000), with increases of 6.7u and 5.1u for the 361- and 362-minute groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that 362 minutes of oscillating grade IVz SLR neurodynamic treatment has no additional benefit over 361 minute, on ROM HF or EMG magnitude of semitendinosus at P1. Using an oscillating SLR treatment may, however, help to increase pain-free ROM HF, although further studies are necessary to confirm this.

Classification of patients with low back-related leg pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The identification of clinically relevant subgroups of low back pain (LBP) is considered the number one LBP research priority in primary care. One subgroup of LBP patients are those with back related leg pain. Leg pain frequently accompanies LBP and is associated with increased levels of disability and higher health costs than simple low back pain. Distinguishing between different types of low back-related leg pain (LBLP) is important for clinical management and research applications, but there is currently no clear agreement on how to define and identify LBLP due to nerve root involvement. The aim of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise papers that classify or subgroup populations with LBLP, and summarise how leg pain due to nerve root involvement is described and diagnosed in the various systems.

METHODS

The search strategy involved nine electronic databases including Medline and Embase, reference lists of eligible studies and relevant reviews. Selected papers were appraised independently by two reviewers using a standardised scoring tool.

RESULTS

Of 13,358 initial potential eligible citations, 50 relevant papers were identified that reported on 22 classification systems. Papers were grouped according to purpose and criteria of the classification systems. Five themes emerged: (i) clinical features (ii) pathoanatomy (iii) treatment-based approach (iv) screening tools and prediction rules and (v) pain mechanisms. Three of the twenty two systems focused specifically on LBLP populations. Systems that scored highest following quality appraisal were ones where authors generally included statistical methods to develop their classifications, and supporting work had been published on the systems' validity, reliability and generalisability. There was lack of consistency in how LBLP due to nerve root involvement was described and diagnosed within the systems.

CONCLUSION

Numerous classification systems exist that include patients with leg pain, a minority of them focus specifically on distinguishing between different presentations of leg pain. Further work is needed to identify clinically meaningful subgroups of LBLP patients, ideally based on large primary care cohort populations and using recommended methods for classification system development.

The short term effects of straight leg raise neurodynamic treatment on pressure pain and vibration thresholds in individuals with spinally referred leg pain

BACKGROUND

Limited research exists for the effects of neurodynamic treatment techniques. Understanding short term physiological outcomes could help to better understand immediate benefits or harm of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the short-term effects of a straight leg raise (SLR) tensioner 'intervention' on pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and vibration thresholds (VT), and establish if additional factors influence outcome in individuals with spinally referred leg pain.

DESIGN

Experimental, repeated measures.

METHODS

Sixty seven participants (mean age (SD) 52.9 (13.3), 33 female) with spinally referred leg pain were divided into 3 sub-groups: somatic referred pain, radicular pain and radiculopathy. Individuals were assessed for central sensitisation (CS) and completed 5 disability and psychosocial questionnaires. PPT and VT were measured pre and post a 3 × 1 min SLR tensioner intervention.

RESULTS

No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between the 3 groups for either outcome measure, or after treatment. Slight improvements in VT were seen in the radiculopathy group after treatment, but were not significant. Only 2 participants were identified with CS. Disability and psychological factors were not significantly different at baseline between the 3 sub-groups, and did not correlate with the outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

No beneficial effects of treatment were found, but the trend for a decrease in VT indicated that even in individuals with radiculopathy, no detrimental changes to nerve function occurred. Psychosocial factors and levels of disability did not influence short term outcome of SLR treatment.

Using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) as a tool for improving the design and reporting of manual therapy interventions

The detailed reporting of any research intervention is crucial to evaluate its applicability into a routinely practice-based context. However, it has been estimated that, especially in non-pharmacological interventions, the published literature typically includes incomplete intervention details. In the field of manual medicine, where interventions are delivered with a high degree of individualization and variability, poorly reported studies could compromise internal and external validity of the results. Among the various initiatives that have been undertaken to improve the intervention description, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) has to be highlighted as the most promising. TIDieR offers both to researchers and clinicians a helpful and comprehensive guidance on how manual therapy interventions have to be designed and reported, taking into account the clinical complexity of manual therapy and the need to satisfy research gold standards.

[Chronic low back pain : Comparison of mobilization and core stability exercises]

BACKGROUND

For the treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), both core stability and mobilization exercises were introduced. The aim of this prospective randomized clinical pilot study was to compare the efficacy of mobilization and core stability exercises with regard to objective and subjective outcome measures in patients with cLBP.

METHOD

After a per-protocol analysis, the data of 27 patients with cLBP, who were randomly allocated to one of the two groups, were analyzed. The intervention group (GM) performed mobilization exercises using the BALLance-Methode®, the control group (GS) carried out core stability exercises for 4 weeks, and continued the exercises for an additional 4 weeks at home. Flexibility, strength endurance of the core stabilizing muscles, pain-induced disability, and pain avoidance behavior were the objective and subjective outcomes that were measured before, 4 weeks after, and 8 weeks after the onset of the intervention. The significance of differences within and between groups was analyzed.

RESULTS

During the observation period, only in the GS patients could maintain the prone-plank position and the side-plank position improvements over time (p < 0.001), with significant differences compared with the GM (p < 0.05). Within both groups significant improvements in the subjective outcome measures were found (p < 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences existed between the groups.

CONCLUSION

With regard to their daily complaints, patients with cLBP can be treated using standardized mobilization exercises in addition to core stability exercises.

Excursion of the Sciatic Nerve During Nerve Mobilization Exercises: An In Vivo Cross-sectional Study Using Dynamic Ultrasound Imaging

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory cross-sectional study using single-group, within-subject comparisons.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different types of neurodynamic techniques result in differences in longitudinal sciatic nerve excursion.

BACKGROUND

Large differences in nerve biomechanics have been demonstrated for different neurodynamic techniques for the upper limb (median nerve), but recent findings for the sciatic nerve have only revealed small differences in nerve excursion that may not be clinically meaningful.

METHODS

High-resolution ultrasound imaging was used to quantify longitudinal sciatic nerve movement in the thigh of 15 asymptomatic participants during 6 different mobilization techniques for the sciatic nerve involving the hip and knee. Healthy volunteers were selected to demonstrate normal nerve biomechanics and to eliminate potentially confounding variables associated with dysfunction. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The techniques resulted in markedly different amounts of nerve movement (P<.001). The tensioning technique was associated with the smallest excursion (mean ± SD, 3.2 ± 2.1 mm; P < or = .004). The sliding technique resulted in the largest excursion (mean ± SD, 17.0 ± 5.2 mm; P<.001), which was approximately 5 times larger than that resulting from the tensioning technique and, on average, twice as large as that resulting from individual hip or knee movements.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with current theories and findings for the median nerve, different neurodynamic exercises for the lower limb resulted in markedly different sciatic nerve excursions. Considering the continuity of the nervous system, the movement and position of adjacent joints have a large impact on nerve biomechanics.

[Subgroup-specific therapy of low back pain: description and validity of two classification systems]

BACKGROUND

In spite of profound advances in the diagnosis and therapy, low back pain (LBP) remains one of the main challenges for health systems in western industrialized countries. Clinical trials and meta-analyses typically show heterogeneous evidence and small effect sizes. One explanation for this phenomenon is the heterogeneous nature of the population of patients with LBP, not adequately considered in clinical practice and research. Recent studies and one meta-analysis show that therapy which is specifically directed at well defined subgroups leads to improved effectiveness of interventions, especially for non-surgical interventions such as manual therapy or physiotherapy.

AIM

This article aims to describe the process of classification and to critically evaluate the underlying evidence.

METHODS

Two validated and commonly used classification systems were selected and their reliability and validity were critically appraised.

RESULTS

The treatment-based classification system was primarily developed and validated for patients with acute LBP. Based on prognostic factors and clinical prediction rules, patients are classified into one of four treatment based categories: traction, manipulation, specific exercises and stabilization. The movement and motor control impairment classification system is based on movement-related, cognitive and psychosocial factors and was developed for patients with chronic LBP. Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments are considered as underlying mechanisms. Three broad subgroups are proposed: firstly, a group with specific pathologies, such as spinal stenosis or disc prolapse with radiculopathy, secondly a group with dominant psychosocial factors and thirdly a group with maladaptive motor control patterns that drive the disorder with either movement impairments or motor control impairments.

CONCLUSION

The reliability of the described classification systems is moderate to good, aspects of validity have been shown. Their implementation in clinical practice seems recommendable.

Clinical presentation and manual therapy for lower quadrant musculoskeletal conditions

Chronic lower quadrant injuries constitute a significant percentage of the musculoskeletal cases seen by clinicians. While impairments may vary, pain is often the factor that compels the patient to seek medical attention. Traumatic injury from sport is one cause of progressive chronic joint pain, particularly in the lower quarter. Recent studies have demonstrated the presence of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms in different lower quadrant pain syndromes, such as lumbar spine related leg pain, osteoarthritis of the knee, and following acute injuries such as lateral ankle sprain and anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Proper management of lower quarter conditions should include assessment of balance and gait as increasing pain and chronicity may lead to altered gait patterns and falls. In addition, quantitative sensory testing may provide insight into pain mechanisms which affect management and prognosis of musculoskeletal conditions. Studies have demonstrated analgesic effects and modulation of spinal excitability with use of manual therapy techniques, with clinical outcomes of improved gait and functional ability. This paper will discuss the evidence which supports the use of manual therapy for lower quarter musculoskeletal dysfunction.

Comparison of longitudinal sciatic nerve movement with different mobilization exercises: an in vivo study utilizing ultrasound imaging

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study using a single-group, within-subjects comparison.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different types of neural mobilization exercises are associated with differing amounts of longitudinal sciatic nerve excursion measured in vivo at the posterior midthigh region.

BACKGROUND

Recent research focusing on the upper limb of healthy subjects has shown that nerve excursion differs significantly between different types of neural mobilization exercises. This has not been examined in the lower limb. It is important to initially examine the influence of neural mobilization on peripheral nerve excursion in healthy people to identify peripheral nerve excursion impairments under conditions in which nerve excursion may be compromised.

METHODS

High-resolution ultrasound imaging was used to assess sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh region. Four different neural mobilization exercises were performed in 31 healthy participants. These neural mobilization exercises used combinations of knee extension and cervical spine flexion and extension. Frame-by-frame cross-correlation analysis of the ultrasound images was used to calculate nerve excursion. A repeated-measures analysis of variance and isolated means comparisons were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Different neural mobilization exercises induced significantly different amounts of sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh region (P<.001). The slider exercise, consisting of the participant performing simultaneous cervical spine and knee extension, resulted in the largest amount of sciatic nerve excursion (mean ± SD, 3.2 ± 2.0 mm). The amount of excursion during the slider exercise was slightly greater (mean ± SD, 2.6 ± 1.5 mm; P = .002) than it was during the tensioner exercise (simultaneous cervical spine flexion and knee extension). The single-joint neck flexion exercise resulted in the least amount of sciatic nerve excursion at the posterior midthigh (mean ± SD, -0.1 ± 0.1 mm), which was significantly smaller than the other 3 exercises (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

These findings are consistent with the results of previous research that has examined median nerve excursion associated with different neural mobilization exercises. Such nerve excursion supports theories of nerve motion associated with cervical spine and extremity movement, as generalizable to the lower limb.